Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

188 Excellent

About CT7567

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I hope Nils @Vingtor can weigh in with additional information on this question - such as any date included on the technical order he referenced. It's a pretty widely known fact that EDSG and DSG are frequently confused for one another (pull up just about any thread on the RAF Shackleton for example). I think this has mainly to do with varied lighting, compounded by the "neutral" gray reflecting varied background hues (sea/sky/ground/etc), compounded by some degree of weathering and the usual suspects of questionable color fidelity in print or online.
  2. I've never done a detailed comparison but the consensus from previous discussions is that the best overall shape accuracy for the CH-53 is surprisingly not Fujimi nor Italeri, but the "dark horse" option of Airfix. https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234965958-best-172-super-jolly-green-giant/
  3. As I said above: Other than some minor details (e.g. bulged doors for havyweight gear), the Revell kits provide an excellent basis for virtually all versions of the baseline A/B/C/D without needing any corrections or additions. The difference between the panel lines on an A/B airframe vs a C/D version is pretty trivial, especially in 1/72 scale. If you feel only the Tamiya is acceptable, or that you must rescribe, go ahead, but my point is this is not the standard of accuracy looked for by 99% of modellers, for whom the Revell kit can build a perfectly acceptable C/D.
  4. The question would be *why*? The Tamiya kit represents a Block 50, thus difficult to alter into anything other than another GE engined, "largemouth" C-model. Other than some minor details (e.g. bulged doors for havyweight gear), the Revell kits provide an excellent basis for virtually all versions of the baseline A/B/C/D without needing any corrections or additions. The "Frankenviper" diagram above seems to givevtge false impression the Revell and Tamiya kits have some sort of fatal flaws (they don't). What's really outrageous is the suggestion to splice in parts from the Italeri kit as a "correction." If you've ever seen, much less built, the Italeri kit compared to Revell or Tamiya you should realize this is laughable.
  5. I'm 100% certain the issue is using "ivory" pigmented inks, and I had resigned myself to the notion that Hasegawa's printer just couldn't do a "pure" white - until I picked up the old (circa 1990) Tornado IDS kit and was shocked to find pure white markings! What's even more strange is this sheet uses *both* the white (sword motif left of sheet) and the ivory (loze ge shapes at bottom, intended as backing decals for the black/red/yellow markings). Maddeningly, the smaller decals that have elements that should be white are printed in the ivory color instead.
  6. This obviously supersedes my notes above. Checking the article I referenced and reviewing other photos of Norwegian P-3Bs from that timeframe, I have no reason to doubt Dark Sea Gray is the correct color. @Robertone139 if you need an FS595 reference, there isn't a precise equivalent. FS36173 is generally considered the closest match, but it is noticeably warmer (in the same light - as with most neutral colors, appearnce of the gray can change significantly).
  7. Nothing precise. The photos in the article I have are either black & white or poorly lit (inside a hangar). If you read through the decal review article linked above, the author indicates he had seen the Norwegian aircraft in person and disputes some of Microscale's callouts. His recommendation is Extra Dark Sea Gray, which faded to a color closer to FS36118. I don't have anything to confirm the above info, but that's at least the right ballpark (if they were painted to US standards I would suggest FS36076 or 36081 as the baseline; for the record, the photos I have don't seem to show significant fading/weathering).
  8. I have a hardcopy magazine article on this incident from circa 1990 that included a couple of photos of the P-3B. IIRC it was in the "low viz" version of the dark gray scheme - with smaller national insignia and markings. I don't know of any aftermarket decals for that version, but there is an old Micro/Superscale sheet for the "high viz" scheme that would share some basic data stencilling. https://modelingmadness.com/scott/decals/super/ss72435.htm This article includes a painting that gives some impression of the low-viz Orion markings and provides the serial and the BuNo: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-a-soviet-su-27-flanker-collided-with-a-norwegian-p-3-orion-over-the-barents-sea/ Airliners.net only has one photo of that airframe, dated 1978, but it appears to have been in the same scheme then: Airliners.net photo link
  9. Hate to see a kit so close to the finish line run into a serious mishap. Not sure if you've already scrapped this build for good, but I know there is a Falcon/Squadron vacform canopy set for the Airfix kit, it might be worth checking to see if it could solve your problem. The other option is reassembling the broken kit part and using it as a master (with clay or putty backup) to smash-form a replacement.
  10. I don't know of a single best reference on the Italian Starfighters, but there is an abundance of material available online. You mentioned not being as interested in unit histories, but for accuracy of airframe, weapons loads, and colors & markings, knowing something about the unit histories and sub-types assigned to each Stormo/Gruppo can be very important. For example, just the term "F-104S" could refer to anything from the original deliveries, to the F-104S ASA mid-life upgrade, or the final F-104S ASA-M. I recall several years ago reading a website that had detailed info and good illustrations of all the variants as well as the unit histories and role assignments in AMI service, but unfortunately I no longer have the bookmark. I'll see what my Google-fu may be able to turn up and post any meaningful results here.
  11. Both Italeri and Hobbyboss HH-60J kits lack an accurate interior for the rescue birds and none have the "glass" cockpit (digital displays vs traditional dial gauges) that was a feature of the MH-60T upgrade. I don't know of any aftermarket upgrades, so you would most likely need to do some significant scratchbuilding to accurize the base kit - or just leave the doors closed and live with it. Full disclosure, I do not have the Italeri HH-60J but do have their similar HH-60H kit and the Hobbyboss HH-60J (none built). Some of these notes are based on comments from others, some based on the other Blackhawk/Seahawk "family" of kits from the respective manufacturers. Italeri's panel lines are raised but not overdone (if anything they're perhaps a little too subtle). Shapes seem generally accurate. I've read that there are issues with fit of the clear parts on the lower nose area (glazing too small for the openings provided). Hobbyboss panel lines are recessed, equally subtle to Italeri's. Nose shape seems a bit "blockish" compared to the real thing so edge to Italeri IMHO. No major fit issues I'm aware of, but I haven't read a build review of the HH-60s (Hobbyboss does the USCG J model and "early" and "late" versions of the Navy HH-60H). Overall I'd say the kits are close to equal, with a slight advantage to Italeri because of the Hobbyboss nose shape issues. As noted earlier, neither is perfect, but even straight from the box you can get a decent, if not entirely accurate or superdetailed, HH-60J.
  12. This. The biggest disadvantage of having six feature films, several TV series, and (at the time) a vast Expanded Universe of canon when JJ, Disney, & Co, started work on the sequel saga is that every aspect of the storytelling needs to be reasonably consistent with that universe and its established rules. I think this is indirectly an outgrowth of effects being all digital and the comparatively short timeframe put into developing both the story and the design of new vehicles, creatures, and worlds. (Remember Lucasfilm took a full 3 years between each film of the original trilogy). Instead of thinking about a new ship design with as much "real world" (in-universe) engineering logic as possible, the focus becomes purely what it looks like. For example instead of a Y-wing that has exposed engine components with the idea a "hood" (er, bonnet) was left off since the ship is under constant maintenance, in the first prequel we got the Naboo fighter that was supposed to house an R2 unit but forgot to include room for its legs. The sequel logic of a "strap on booster" for a fighter capable of unassisted FTL travel is an order of magnitude worse (but frankly that doesn't even crack my top 10 list of problems with Episode VIII). Anyway I'm not as bothered by the questionable story logic of an all-new First Order starfleet, but it does show a pattern of neglect for both writing and design that follow rules of common sense.
  13. Just to clarify, the designation used on all available 1/72 kits is the original "HH-60J" - these (plus a small number of SH-60Fs) were upgraded to MH-60T standard, but to my knowledge there was never an "MH-60J." Also note the Coast Guard Jayhawks, though largely similar to rescue hawks used by other services (HH-60H, various other MH-60 marks), have some unique features so you'll need a kit or conversion specific to the USCG variant. Italeri and HobbyBoss have both issued 1/72 HH-60J kits, neither of which is perfect (esp. with respect to cabin interior for this variant), but if you're not picky about the interior you can pretty well build an MH-60T from the box. From the photos I've seen the only marking difference is the type designation, usually displayed above the 4-digit serial on the tail. I believe the upgraded HH-60Js kept the same serial numbers as MH-60Ts so it should just require changing a couple of letters.
  14. CT7567

    Harrier canopy

    I don't know of any aftermarket canopy for the GR.7/9. You might try contacting both Revell and Hasegawa to see if it's possible to acquire a replacement clear sprue (any of Hasegawa's "second generation" AV-8 family should have the same canopy parts). If that doesn't work, you might find a secondhand "parts kit" if someone has abandoned a build of the same kit, or adapt parts from another 1/72 Harrier (Italeri/Testors, Airfix/Heller, or ESCI all made them). Tinting the canopy as you described may not hide the damage very well, but since you're obviously OK with obscuring the cockpit you might consider putting a full blackout coat on the outside of the glass, similar to what you occasionally see on "gate guard" aircraft on outdoor display. I've seen this done well with gloss black or silver.
  15. The topside sea blue color seems natural for an ocean-going fighter, but green has always seemed like an odd choice. I don't have any definite answers but can make some semi-informed speculation about the belly paint color. The green occurs (roughly) in areas of the airframe that would be subject to the most heat from the exhausts, particularly during vertical takeoff or landing. This suggests it has a different formulation for durability/heat resistance than the topside blue, which may also have limited the colors achievable (camouflaged MiG-23s have a "two tone" belly with a darker color under the "hot" engine section for similar reasons). The most widely used and durable primer formulations frequently use zinc which results in various shades of green (still used to present day on Soviet/Russian wheel hubs, amongst other fixtures). If the green areas of the Forger were subject to anything like the wear and tear seen on U.S. Navy and Marine carrier aircraft during a deployment, it would make sense to stick with the simplest color to do the job when touch-ups at sea would have to be expected, so this may have been a typically Soviet utilitarian decision. The other interesting thing is that late in its service life at least some of the late production Yak-38Ms, which featured various technical upgrades over the baseline Yak-38, were painted in a light gray over dark gray scheme (apparently following the same pattern as the original blue over green). It seems odd they would have chosen green in favor of gray for the original scheme, so if my speculation is accurate then they may have improved paint options from the time of the original aircraft's production, and/or the gray Yak-38Ms may have been used differently (for example I have never seen a photo of one of the gray airframes deployed at sea). Mostly idle speculation on my part, hopefully if anyone has more definitive information they'll share here ☺
  • Create New...